From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,7b73eb137e4ed638 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-16 16:33:43 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!212.74.64.35!colt.net!newspeer.clara.net!news.clara.net!psiuk-p2!psiuk-p3!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada Compilers Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 09:16:03 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: References: <3CE2AF22.2060208@gmx.spam.egg.sausage.and.spam.net> <878z6kq4rr.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1021554966 16599 136.170.200.133 (16 May 2002 13:16:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 16 May 2002 13:16:06 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:24237 Date: 2002-05-16T13:16:06+00:00 List-Id: True, but misleading. GNAT and GNU C/C++ may all share the same back end & hence produce similar code for similar input programs, but that in no way says anything about how good the code is compared to some other compiler that works for either Ada, C or C++. Its theoretically possible that the gcc backend might generate really crappy code and hence Ada and C++ are equally bad. What does that tell you about the relative efficiency of Ada or C++? This is why its totally useless to ask the question "How does Ada compare against C++ for efficiency...?" The best we can answer is that the Ada standard doesn't impose anything that is inherently inefficient for the semantic content delivered and the rest is a matter of comparing one compiler against another. There are efficient implementations of both Ada and C++. There are also bad implementations of both languages. We *really* need to educate developers (who *should* know this by the time they leave college!) that languages aren't "slow" - only implementations are. MDC -- Marin David Condic Senior Software Engineer Pace Micro Technology Americas www.pacemicro.com Enabling the digital revolution e-Mail: marin.condic@pacemicro.com "Florian Weimer" wrote in message news:878z6kq4rr.fsf@deneb.enyo.de... > > That's easy in the case of GNAT: identical for equivalent programs. > Both GNU compilers share the same code generator.